New NCAA Scholarship limits
- Thread starter pokeresq
- Start date
RoseBowl1942
Member
Dabo says this might indeed be the end of walk-on players. Indicating all players must have a scholarship- His career might never have started !
While I still have not read the full 100 page settlement, it appears that NOT all players on a roster must receive a full scholarship. However, any player on the roster counts against the roster limit. In other words, every walk-on reduces the number of scholarship players a team can have on the roster.
Previously you were limited on the number of scholarships you could offer, but walk-on players could be on the roster without counting against the limits. Schools were starting to use NIL collectives to award unofficial scholarships to "walk-ons". Because now the restriction is on the number of players on the roster not number of scholarships, the loophole is closed.
A seldom discussed impact of the increases is that for Duke each scholarship costs considerably more than it does for the public school teams against which we compete in the ACC because of the higher cost of attendance. Raising the funds to pay say 2X what it costs in CHeater Hill for a new scholarship imposes significantly more of a burden on Duke.
I do wonder if the limit of 50 for equestrian rosters includes the horses? Given the overall demographics of equestrian events, it may be a Varsity Blues type way to get additional full tuition students by giving wealthy students who have never ridden a horse a roster spot (and preferential admission) without providing a scholarship.
This still appears to me to be a bit of the legal equivalent of a square peg in a round hole, but a Judge almost always favors even a dubious settlement over protracted litigation. That the settlement is bit shaky may be reflected by the term sheet being news dumped on a Friday afternoon which also was Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics.
Previously you were limited on the number of scholarships you could offer, but walk-on players could be on the roster without counting against the limits. Schools were starting to use NIL collectives to award unofficial scholarships to "walk-ons". Because now the restriction is on the number of players on the roster not number of scholarships, the loophole is closed.
A seldom discussed impact of the increases is that for Duke each scholarship costs considerably more than it does for the public school teams against which we compete in the ACC because of the higher cost of attendance. Raising the funds to pay say 2X what it costs in CHeater Hill for a new scholarship imposes significantly more of a burden on Duke.
I do wonder if the limit of 50 for equestrian rosters includes the horses? Given the overall demographics of equestrian events, it may be a Varsity Blues type way to get additional full tuition students by giving wealthy students who have never ridden a horse a roster spot (and preferential admission) without providing a scholarship.
This still appears to me to be a bit of the legal equivalent of a square peg in a round hole, but a Judge almost always favors even a dubious settlement over protracted litigation. That the settlement is bit shaky may be reflected by the term sheet being news dumped on a Friday afternoon which also was Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics.
sagegrouse
Member
So, the bias against walk-ons is "implicit" in football -- created by the roster limit?